Antholine Fernandez v. Bridgecrest Credit Co., 19-56378

Plaintiffs Antholine and Ronald Fernandez sued Bridgecrest, seeking injunctive relief and other remedies related to repossessed or surrendered vehicles.
One requested injunction would bar Bridgecrest from transferring California vehicles to Las Vegas for auction unless Bridgecrest pays to return vehicles to California for customers who reinstate or redeem contracts.
Bridgecrest moved to compel arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); the district court denied the motion, relying on California law (McGill) rendering arbitration waivers void when they bar pursuit of public injunctive relief.
Bridgecrest appealed; it argued the requested injunction is private (not public) and thus McGill does not apply, and alternatively argued the FAA preempts McGill.
The Ninth Circuit held the challenged injunction is private (benefits only similarly situated Bridgecrest customers), rejected Bridgecrest’s FAA-preemption argument based on circuit precedent, and reversed the district court, instructing it to compel arbitration.
The panel did not decide whether a contract “poison pill” clause invalidated the arbitration agreement because resolving the McGill issue made that unnecessary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the requested injunction constitutes "public" injunctive relief under McGill	The injunction protects California consumers generally and thus implicates public injunctive relief concerns	The injunction benefits only Bridgecrest customers with assigned contracts—the relief is private and not covered by McGill	The injunction is private (benefits only similarly situated customers); McGill does not bar arbitration enforcement
Whether the FAA preempts California's McGill rule	McGill applies and prevents enforcement of arbitration waivers that bar public injunctive relief	FAA preempts McGill to the extent it invalidates arbitration agreements	FAA does not preempt McGill under Ninth Circuit precedent; court declined to grant en banc review
Whether a contract “poison pill” clause nullifies the arbitration agreement	The plaintiffs argued the requested injunctive relief triggered the poison pill, invalidating arbitration	Bridgecrest argued the poison pill should not invalidate the agreement	Court did not reach the poison pill issue because it concluded the relief sought was private and arbitration must be compelled

McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017) (California rule: arbitration provisions that waive statutory public injunctive relief are void)
Hodges v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 21 F.4th 535 (9th Cir. 2021) (distinguishes public vs. private injunctive relief; relief limited to similarly situated plaintiffs is private)
O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 904 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2018) (standard of de novo appellate review for arbitration questions)
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (principles on arbitration’s bilateral nature cited in FAA preemption context)
Blair v. Rent-A-Ctr., 928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019) (supports view that McGill-considered public-injunction requests do not necessarily conflict with FAA)
AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (FAA's purpose is to enforce private arbitration agreements according to their terms)